GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 33.1m
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.6

Suffocating point-of-attack defense set the tone for the entire game, generating multiple deflections that sparked transition breaks. He balanced his elite defensive metrics with timely, efficient cuts to the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +18.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 33.1m -8.9
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 31.3m
29
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+23.5

Masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages allowed him to dissect the defense for high-percentage looks all night. He consistently punished switches by hunting favorable matchups, driving an overwhelmingly positive offensive rating.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 31.3m --1.8
Impact +23.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 30.0m
3
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Tremendous defensive activity and loose-ball recoveries were completely undone by offensive hesitancy and spacing issues. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged the driving lanes and resulted in several team turnovers.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 30.0m -9.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+18.0

Dominated the interior matchups by establishing deep post position early and punishing late double-teams. His elite shot selection and disciplined verticality at the rim drove a massive positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +25.6
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 29.9m -13.0
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 15.4m
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

An uncharacteristically passive offensive night saw him bypass open looks, stalling the half-court offense. While his isolation defense remained elite, the lack of a scoring threat allowed defenders to freely double the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 15.4m -15.2
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Active closeouts and high-energy hustle plays couldn't compensate for poor spacing and mistimed cuts. A couple of crucial offensive fouls while navigating screens ultimately dragged his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 28.4m -10.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Injected immediate life into the second unit with aggressive, decisive drives to the cup. His willingness to attack closeouts tilted the defense, though occasional defensive lapses kept his overall impact modest.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 18.2m -6.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Changed the tempo of the game by applying relentless full-court pressure and forcing rushed decisions. His opportunistic finishing in transition capitalized perfectly on the chaos he created defensively.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 18.1m -11.0
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Flawless execution as a roll man punished the defense for trapping the ball-handlers. His ability to catch and finish in traffic provided a highly efficient offensive anchor during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 12.6m -9.8
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Stifling on-ball defense was offset by a complete lack of offensive rhythm. Missing badly on his few perimeter attempts allowed the defense to sag off and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 10.7m -6.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.2

Made his presence felt purely through off-ball dirty work and switchable defense in a brief stint. Denying the ball to the opponent's primary creator disrupted their sets enough to yield a positive swing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 6.1m -10.6
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Rushed his perimeter looks during a very brief appearance, failing to capitalize on open spot-ups. Maintained defensive integrity but couldn't generate any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 3.6m -7.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.6

Struggled to execute defensive rotations during his short stint, giving up easy angles to the rim. His inability to secure positioning led to quick fouls that hurt the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 2.6m -7.8
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.4m
16
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.8

A stark drop in scoring volume compared to his recent tear limited his usual offensive gravity. While his defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp, a string of forced mid-range jumpers and offensive fouls ultimately resulted in a negative net yield.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 35.4m -6.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 34.3m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.5

Despite solid offensive creation, his overall impact was dragged down to neutral by costly live-ball turnovers in the half-court. He consistently collapsed the defense on drives, but poor decision-making in traffic negated his positive hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 34.3m -11.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ja'Kobe Walter 29.4m
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Excellent perimeter spacing and catch-and-shoot execution drove a strong box score, but hidden mistakes erased those gains. Late defensive rotations and a couple of crucial bad-pass turnovers in the fourth quarter kept his total impact in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -33.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 29.4m -3.4
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Shead 27.2m
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-12.8

Bleeding value on both ends, his impact score plummeted due to erratic shot selection and blown defensive assignments on the perimeter. Missing badly on contested floaters allowed the opponent to leak out for easy transition points.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -5.4
Raw total -6.8
Avg player in 27.2m -6.0
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jakob Poeltl 19.4m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Completely neutralized by opposing size, his inability to establish deep post position resulted in a massive drop-off from his recent high-efficiency scoring streak. He remained active on the glass and in rim protection, but the lack of offensive touches cratered his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 19.4m -9.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.0

Spacing the floor effectively from the frontcourt opened up driving lanes for the guards all night. His outstanding defensive positioning and timely weak-side helps defined a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.0m -3.8
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
A.J. Lawson 22.4m
5
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Brick-laying from the outside severely capped his offensive ceiling, though he salvaged his minutes with relentless point-of-attack defense. His ability to navigate screens disrupted the opponent's rhythm, even if his own shot selection left much to be desired.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 22.4m -7.4
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Efficient finishing around the basket couldn't mask the damage done by sloppy screening and offensive fouls. He struggled to anchor the defense in drop coverage, allowing guards to easily turn the corner and compromise the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 17.0m -13.0
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gradey Dick 12.0m
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications by constantly relocating along the perimeter for high-quality looks. His off-ball gravity and active hands in the passing lanes provided a massive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 12.0m -9.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock completely derailed the team's offensive flow. His inability to stay in front of his matchup on the perimeter compounded the damage, leading to a severely negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 27.6%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total -4.9
Avg player in 11.7m -9.7
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Provided a brief but stable presence during a short rotation stint. Keeping the ball moving without forcing the issue ensured the second unit maintained its spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -80.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 6.2m -7.6
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0